Entertainment desk
< March 25	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 26

Identifying stock tune.

At least I think it's stock. It was mostly used for La Résistance in WWE, but I've heard it several times on CNN for their Afghanistan/Iraq War graphics. I think CTV may have used it once, for something. According to our article, and unreliable sources, it's called "Final Force". But that's not finding me anything about the composer or orchestra. Have a listen. Any help? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This claims CNN's tunes around the time were all "chosen from a commercially available pre-packaged set of themes". So that answers the stock question. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might ring a bell. This tune has also been used frequently by CNN and WWE. Maybe there's a link? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've narrowed it down to something from these fine folks. I should be able to take it from here. Thanks for letting me answer myself. Gives an extra feeling of accomplishment. Near-accomplishment, anyway. Plus, that site has many excellent tunes! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Individual in the Middle of This Photo

Who exactly is the individual in the middle of this photo? -- http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf35veMFSS1qbu51oo1_500.jpg

I think that the link above shows photos of three performance artists/singers, which is why I posted this question here. Also, despite the humorous captions in this link, this post of mine is not a joke--I am genuinely curious as to who the individual in the middle photo in my link above is. Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is CL (singer), who is a rather well-known K-pop artists. I could be mistaken, but compare to [1]. --Jayron32 01:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling

Is WWE the wrestling true,all that fighting,steel chair hiting and even challenging or fighting the manager is all that true and hw do they do it and those people watchin do they pay or they a paid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.246.55.138 (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Define "true". The wrestlers do perform rather impressive athletic feats as part of their performance, but the matches themselves are carefully coreographed and "staged". No, they really don't hit to injure with real chairs, and most of the moves are well practiced and trained before the performance. The matches themselves are planned and acted out; again the performers are quite athletic to pull off the performance, but that isn't a real "contest", and what you see is not a true athletic event. See Professional wrestling. --Jayron32 10:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro wrestling has been a farce for a long time. Go to the 5:15 mark of this and note Dick Elliot's comment about honest wrestling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If by "for a long time" you mean "since it started" you'd be right. "Pro wrestling" has never been taken seriously as a form of athletic competition. The best analogy I can draw is the connection between figure skating and the ice capades or similar "exhibitions" of ice skating skill. The former is a competitive endeavor, the latter is purely for entertainment purposes. The difference in the realm of wrestling is that they maintain the conceit of it being competitive, but it's still acting and not a competition. --Jayron32 13:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite since it started. In the early 20th century, it was still rather firmly rooted in competition. It was the Gold Dust Trio who decided this was boring, and not good for business. For decades after, many fans still took it "seriously" (though many didn't). Wasn't until the late 80s that the cat was officially out of the bag, when Vince McMahon started using the "sports entertainment" term to avoid being regulated by state athletic commissions. Kayfabe was generally publicly kept by the wrestlers and promoters until about the time WWE Confidential and the Internet took off. Since then, almost everyone has a shoot interview or two, and many characters themselves break the fourth wall on TV. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WWE hasn't even pretend to be a real competition for ages. There are plenty of interviews with still-active employees discussing the writing and planning process. Mingmingla (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This always reminds me of Livia's speech to the gladiators in an episode of I, Claudius. The consequences she proposed for faking it add a nice touch :-) MarnetteD | Talk 18:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps should be noted that the 1998 Brawl for All was a legit contest, though boxing. They're the only planned real matches I remember in WWE, but various dances have turned sour. They're only human, after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, there was the time flash-in-the-pan Daniel Puder almost made top star and Olympic medalist Kurt Angle tap, before the ref saved us from disillusionment. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And one never really knows what they'll get from New Jack. Hard to say whether that guy's good at blurring lines or his own line is blurred, but at least Invader I had the decency to stab people backstage. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the topic of Brody and stuff getting real, here he is not wrestling Lex Luger. Also, the promotion he mainly worked was run by a (seemingly) truly cursed family. The promotion itself may have been cursed. Or curses may be faker than wrestling. Who knows? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stage names for actors and entertainers

It is (obviously) very common that those in show business (actors, entertainers, etc.) often take a stage name and do not use their "real name". My question is: do they actually do a legal name change? Or, legally, do they keep their "real name" (for legal purposes) and just use the stage name for purposes of credits, billing, marketing, etc.? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to legally change their name, so usually don't. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking with the wrasslin', see Warrior (wrestler). There was some method to his madness. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Rodney Dangerfield was born Jacob Cohen, and his earlier career was under the name Jack Roy. He had his name legally changed to Jack Roy. Far as I know, he retained Jack Roy as his legal name. So Rodney kind of did it both ways. Then you have the example of Jim McKay, who retained his legal name Jim McManus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. So, let me use an example to get to my follow-up question. I will use a celebrity who is dead (to avoid any potential BLP issues), and I will use a male celebrity (to avoid the whole issue of women getting married and legally changing their name to that of the husband). So, let's use as my example Richard Dawson (stage name) who was born Colin Emm (real name). Also, let's assume he never did the legal name change; it was merely a stage name. When he did an acting job, would the paycheck be written out to "Richard Dawson" or to "Colin Emm"? Or to either name, based on whatever preference (or arbitrary decision) of the payer and/or payee? If he signed legal papers (a bank loan, a mortgage, an acting contract, whatever), was he obligated to sign "Emm" or could he simply (arbitrarily) decide to sign "Dawson"? By the way, I am referring to activity in the United States. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dawson's article says he later legalized the name. So, after that, he'd use that name for business~~. But it'd probably confuse the bureaucracies beforehand. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, we're assuming. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the issue of what name is used when people (not Americans) with stage names receive knighthoods or damehoods. British, New Zealand, and now, once more, Australian people are so eligible. I believe Rex Harrison, whose legal name was Reginald Harrison, was knighted as "Sir Reginald", even though the world called him "Sir Rex". And Sir Michael Caine, whose real legal name remains Maurice Micklewhite, is legally "Sir Maurice Micklewhite" but again, he gets "Sir Michael Caine". Now, if Barry Humphries were to accept a knighthood in the Order of Australia, would that make Dame Edna Everage a real Dame of the Order rather than a mere faux dame? One wonders. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know it isn't strictly Wikipedia Reliable as a source, but IMDB notes, of Martin Sheen, "Never officially changed his real name to his stage one. He is still Ramon Estevez on all identifications and legal documents." Here is a document where he signed it with both signatures, printed it says "Ramon Gerard Estevez p/k/a Martin Sheen" and then it has both signatures. I'm pretty sure p/k/a/ stands for "professionally known as" Also of note, his son Charlie Sheen apparently also has legally kept his name Carlos Estevez, and he's even going to be appearing in an upcoming movie billed as Carlos Estevez. So there's a few data points. --Jayron32 23:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Then there's the case of L. Q. Jones, who legally changed his name to that of the first character he played on film. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~I don't think I've seen him, but he just won a fan for that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

My bad. Jones was only his screen name. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well then. Back to obscurity he goes. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

iirc Archibald Leach adopted the name of a character he had played. —Tamfang (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For this kind of situation, I've seen bank application forms (and possibly an official UK government one, but I can't find which one it was) that have separate "name/signature used for professional purposes" sections. MChesterMC (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Up: So, let me follow up on the example where a celebrity does not legally change his name (Richard Dawson, in my above hypothetical example). Can that celebrity – or any "regular" person, really – just arbitrarily and willy-nilly pick a name and have checks made out to that name, have legal documents under that fictitious name, etc.? I mean, doesn't the whole concept of fraud, impersonation, forgery, etc., come into play? So, if my name is "Colin Emm" (Richard Dawson's real birth name), can I just select an arbitrary name (like, for example, "Richard Dawsomn" or perhaps "Suzy Smith") ... and then just have checks written out to "Suzy Smith" and I can sign it (endorse it) as "Suzy Smith"? How does this prevent fraud, impersonation, forgery, etc.? Doesn't that open up a whole can of worms, if I can pick some arbitrary name and conduct legal business under that name? Again, this is all under the premise that no legal name change is filed, as with many celebrities. Does anyone know how this all works? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure. But I am entirely sure I have a hard time cashing a cheque in my real name without ID, even from a teller I've known all my life. I'm certainly not getting away with one made out to InedibleHulk. So I doubt Axl Rose and Bozo the Clown do, either. Banks, police and the government are pretty humourless when it comes to filling out forms. The whole idea behind a legal name change is getting the paperwork straightened. Stage names are way less formal and more prone to change.

Imagine (in an extreme case) how easily The Butcher could slip through the cracks if he signed his cheques "The Man With No Name", all the while working as a barber by day. As Dizzy Hogan, he's in a sham civil union. As The Disciple, he's tax-exempt. As The Booty Man, he's laundering cocaine money into strip clubs and as The Clipmaster, he's virtually invisble. There's a reason they never caught The Zodiac: his signature. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MGM blackface logo?

I saw a 1971 MGM film today and for the first time I thought "That's blackface!" when I saw the logo. Isn't the face at the bottom of the logo blackface? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.135.44 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see an orange face. I guess it could be racist, but that'd be a stretch, in my books. I mean, there's a heart. Kumbaya. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That face reminds me of this Muppet character: [2]. StuRat (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I believe it's simply a theatrical mask. RomanSpa (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MGM generally has used Leo. I wonder if this is what the OP is thinking of? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, watch the video. There's a little mask under the roaring lion head. That's what he's talking about. --Jayron32 02:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e.c.) I think they really do mean the illustrated stylized red/orange comedy mask at the bottom. I agree with RomanSpa, though I found no direct reference, but "drama mask" is mentioned in our article on Leo the Lion (MGM) too. The exaggerated grotesque mouth might remind one of blackface, the white lips might remind one of the pale lips on b&w photos of blackface (which usually are in b&w) but I think it's clear that this wasn't the intention or design here. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. I had never noticed that before. I always had my eye on Leo the Lion (MGM). But it's been there from the beginning, and you all are right that it's simply a classic theatrical mask. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to never having noticed it either, despite being fascinated by Leo since childhood (or rather because of) ---Sluzzelin talk 02:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to note how sickly the early Leo's look, when compared with the modern ones. Presumably the early ones just lived in a cage, which made them sickly, while the later ones got to exercise a bit, and probably got a healthier diet, as zookeepers figured out how to keep them healthy. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I noticed this for the first time due to the minstrel shows I'd seen earlier. In those, the actors who wore blackface intentionally left a white circle around their eyes and a white circle around their lips - just like the face at the bottom of the MGM logo. I assume that was to make their eyes and lips look much larger. I accept your answers but I think I may be on to an unofficial truth, folks! Speaking of poor lions, StuRat, one of the minstrel shows I saw was about a woman who wanted to take a picture of the black character in a lion's cage. When he refused the actress told him that the lion couldn't hurt him because "He hasn't got a tooth in his head!" I thought that was terrible. Hopefully stuff like that didn't really happen, but that's an unpleasant topic for another day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.135.44 (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much point in "accepting our answers" if you immediately decide that you're onto an "unofficial truth" and go around mentioning that instead. Indeed, since your "unofficial truth" is pure supposition, even suggesting that there's some debate about this would be misleading the people you're talking to. Before mentioning your "unofficial truth" to anyone else perhaps you should write to MGM themselves and ask them to explain their logo. Just because you have got an idea into your head doesn't mean that it's true. The world already has too many unofficial truths, and it would be wiser to stick to facts than to engage in speculation. RomanSpa (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it's more redface than otherwise, it makes me think of (if anything) Chinese stage masks. —Tamfang (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do get an African vibe from it. Sort of like Kamala's mask. Figure it goes with the lion. There are some camps (not mine) that find any association between blacks and the jungle "racist", but even then, not all racism is blackface. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The famous MGM mark derives from an earlier mark used by MGM's predecessor, Goldwyn Pictures. If you look at the mark shown in that article, you can see that it plainly is not blackface. The trademark registration for the current MGM mark, USPTO serial number 71246106, includes a design code for "Face Masks (costume); Masks, Halloween (costume); Masks, theatrical masks." I think it's reasonably clear that this is a theatrical mask and not blackface. John M Baker (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there were some issue with that artifact, it would have come up long ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Googling various combinations of MGM logo and mask, there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer, but the consensus is that it's a comedy mask. It's fair to say that it's Africanized, presumably as a tie-in with Leo. There are also a few conspiracy theories about illuminati or some such. The one thing I'm not finding is claims that it's blackface or racist. Someone compared it to a lucha libre mask. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]